Can Scripture Be Its Own Interpreter?
I’ve been thinking a bit about this common statement, and I think the answer is both “yes” and “no.” And therein lies a significant problem, if not several!
I recall an online discussion some years ago with a gentleman who maintained that one should always take what he called the plain meaning of the text. I asked him how one would identify the plain meaning. He told me that we should take what the passage would mean to an average American high school student.
This approach worked reasonably well, though perhaps not correctly, in providing a meaning of Matthew 5:33-37, which, according to him, commands us not to take an oath to speak the truth in court. At a minimum this does make sense of the passage.
Then we came up against Matthew 5:27-30 (clearly not doing the chapter in order), which he told me should not be taken literally. The obvious interpretation, he said, was that one should stand up for Jesus even in the face of martyrdom.
Whether this is a correct interpretation or not, I would suggest that it would be unlikely that an average American high school student would come up with that interpretation without a great deal of coaching.
The problem is that when we read we will read in one context or another, and if we are not conscious of the context, we will supply one.
Where does it come from? If we’re church people, it’s likely to come from the traditions of our denomination or church group. If we’re not, we may supply a completely modern context for statements in an ancient document.
Thus the first difficulty with having scripture interpret itself is that nothing is interpreted without external input. the person I am, what I know, and what I think all will impact the way I will read a passage. If I am to hear the passage as other than a reflection of my own mind, I must be open to the external factors that have shaped it.
Shaped it, because it did not come into existence in a vacuum, nor was it transmitted in a vacuum, nor does it exist in a vacuum. Words have meaning in context, and that context is a part of the society in which the language is spoken. God’s expression comes to us in human words that have meaning to human minds in a human context.
Take a word like “heaven.” We may debate whether the Bible teaches an ancient cosmology or not. I would argue that it doesn’t teach any cosmology at all. Rather, it communicates about other topics using words and ideas shaped by that ancient cosmology. It doesn’t correct it either. That’s part of the context.
Here indeed scripture may help us interpret scripture, as we learn more about the words and concepts used by the writers of scripture to express their ideas and thus come to understand them better. Scripture, after all, contains ancient literature. But in the same way we can learn about scriptural concepts by reading other ancient literature that may share the same, similar, or even distantly related concepts. I recall the excitement of reading Ugaritic literature for the first time and expanding my ideas of various concepts in the ancient world.
What most people mean by scripture interpreting scripture, however, is that you can come to understand a concept that is unclear in one place by finding texts about it elsewhere. If there are intertextual relationships, this can be very helpful, but just as it’s important to avoid parallelomania in the way we interpret relationships between literatures of different cultures we also need to avoid seeing intertextual relationships where they do not exist.
While I am quite convinced that all scripture is inspired and useful, I am quite convinced that it is not all useful in the same way. Words and concepts can differ in meaning in different places.
Thus while scripture can help us interpret scripture, it does not stand alone, and the gathering of texts from various places is hardly a guarantee of correct understanding. We need to be consistently aware of all the various relationships: between the text and its historical and cultural context, between ourselves and the text, between ourselves and our own cultural environment, and between ourselves and God’s Holy Spirit.
In the end, people interpret scripture, hopefully under the guidance of the Spirit. They may be aided in this process by many things.
Regarding ancient cosmologies in Genesis and elsewhere, I recently read that if Genesis 1 were written today, the present cosmological view would be used and would not change the meaning of Genesis 1 in any sense. The point being that the model was used to make a point, not to affirm the model. (That point being, in my view, an anti-polytheistic rebuttal.)
I see the same thing happening with other stories of the bible that employ mythological language, such as the story of Adam and Eve. To ask questions of historicity is to often miss the meaning. It also leads one down irrelevant paths, such as “Where did Cain get his wife!!!” In my view, Adam and Eve are stand-ins for each human being. We are all confronted with the same choice as they, and we suffer the same consequences. Their historicity is irrelevant to that reality. In that sense, the story is true, but not literally true.
Yes, I know that it can be claimed that Jesus and Paul believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve. Yet the use they put to them did not depend on that historicity, but on the theology behind the story.
Now, Henry, (as to your last paragraph) undoubtedly some will be offended by what I write. They are convinced that their reading is superior to mine. If both of us do our interpreting with some guidance from the Holy Spirit, where do we go from there?
I think there is an answer inherent in what I’m saying generally. Because we are different we will hear scripture differently, and we will also hear the guidance of the Holy Spirit differently. We always need to realize that what we read, hear, and understand is read, heard, and understood by a fallible human being. Without exception.
Therefore there can and will be differences.
This should bring a serious amount of humility to our conclusions, and give our differences the honor of a place at the table. Yet, there is not much movement in that direction. That is, if the Holy Spirit is truly involved in the process. And who is there to gainsay that of another?
I received this comment from my sister Betty in e-mail. She gave her permission to post. I hope this may stimulate more conversation.